Victim appeal rights and criminal appeal forums must be read harmoniously, with the amendment applying only prospectively.

The proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates an additional substantive right for a victim, including a complainant who is also the victim, to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation before the court where an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction. Read harmoniously with Section 378(4), it does not displace the separate route for State or complainant appeals to the High Court with leave. However, because the amendment took effect on 31.12.2009, appeals filed in the Sessions Court before that date were not maintainable there and remained governed by the earlier remedy under Section 378(4).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a victim or complainant can prefer an appeal against acquittal to the Sessions Court notwithstanding Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether appeals filed before the Sessions Court before the amendment came into force were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether, after insertion of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a victim or complainant can prefer an appeal against acquittal to the Sessions Court notwithstanding Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 372 confers a substantive right on the victim to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, and directs the appeal to the court where an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction. Section 378(4) continues to operate for appeals by the State or complainant to the High Court with leave. On a harmonious construction, the two provisions operate in different fields and can coexist. The amended provision supplements the existing remedy and does not exclude the appellate forum of the Sessions Court where the trial court is a Magistrate.

Conclusion: A victim, including a complainant where the complainant is also the victim, may invoke the proviso to Section 372 and prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court, and Section 378(4) does not exclude that remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether appeals filed before the Sessions Court before the amendment came into force were maintainable.

Analysis: The amendment introducing the proviso to Section 372 came into force on 31.12.2009. Since the appeals in question had been presented in November 2008, the new appellate remedy was not then available. The earlier position continued to govern those appeals, under which the complainant's remedy against acquittal lay under Section 378(4) before the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable before the Sessions Court when filed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the maintainability of the appeals before the Sessions Court succeeds in part, but the proper course is transfer of the appeals to the High Court rather than quashing them.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 372 creates an additional appellate remedy for victims and must be read harmoniously with Section 378(4), but it applies only from the date it came into force and does not validate appeals filed earlier in a forum lacking jurisdiction at the time of filing.

---